The council has officially backed down from seeking state interference with our local agreements. This outcome belongs entirely to the 223 of you who refused to let our community contract be ignored. I am still processing that we actually won this but we should all keep a close eye on …
February 18, 2022
Kirkland City Council Should Not Ask Washington Legislators to Interfere with Contract Made with It's Citizens
Final supporters
We the undersigned attest to the following. We feel it would be improper for Kirkland City Council to ask State Legislators to interfere with the contract and the responsibilities the city and its Houghton Residents agreed to in Ordinance O-2001, 2003 and 2007.
HISTORY
The City of Kirkland was eager to consolidate with the City of Houghton. Houghton had concerns about joining the larger city and having its voice respected. The deal was sweetened with Kirkland offering to allow the City of Houghton to have their own Community Council. The two sides agreed on the rights and responsibilities of both sides. They agreed on an initial 4 year term of the Community Council and they agreed that the Community Council would continue to be renewed every 4 years (if Houghton-ites voted affirmatively).
City of Kirkland voters approved the bill that was put in front of them. Those in Houghton approved it in a separate vote. In both cases, the (one) vote included a definition of the areas to be included in consolidation, the date and the terms of the consolidation and the formation of Houghton Community Council with its terms of existance and renewal. A deal was struck. These agreements are documented them by Ordinances (Kirkland local law) O-2001, 2003 & 2007.
Kirkland City Council, has been unsuccessful in gaining the trust of Houghton citizens with respect to the issues identified in O-2001, and Houghton area citizens continue to renew the Community Council as ordained. The current vote obtained more than 70% votes to continue the Community Council.
Kirkland City Council would like out of the contract with Houghton, but they have not earned Houghton's trust in the issues identified in O-2001. They have been unable to get out of their side of the bargain no matter how often they mis-represent the Houghton Council and their work. In contrast, Houghton has continued to fulfill its obligations and is entitled to the rights assigned in the agreements made.
Attempts should not be made to get Legislators from Washington State House and Sentate to impair the contract and provide special favors to Kirkland City Council Members, or former Kirkland Council Members and friends that now have legislative power.
Updates
November 20, 2021
I have been hearing from so many of you about why these original agreements matter and your stories are the only reason this conversation is still happening. I truly never expected this to resonate with so many people but I am honored that you chose to trust me with your concerns.
Reached 100 supporters
November 20, 2021
100 Comments
The City of Kirkland has long disfavored residents in support of the commercial over-development of a what was once a wonderful place to live. I stand in support of the Houghton Community Council and their efforts to balance progress and quality of life for residents.
This action is an overreach by KCC. The correct remedy is for the HCC to remain in place unless and until the citizens of Houghton vote for it to be dismantled. Representatives from across the state have NO standing on this issue.
Thanks for initiating this petition. Amy Walen just lost my support as represntative of the 48th district. Too bad that the former mayor of Kirkland is trying to do this. I believe Larry Springer tried to do the same thing in the Washington Legislation, fortunately UNSUCCESSFULLY!
Usually those involved in politics would be calling a 50 point vote margin victory a mandate. But the Kirkland city council sees a 50 point vote margin LOSS as their mandate to try and repeal the voters' will. Very disappointing.
HHC was established as a condition for annexation to the City of Kirkland in 1968. It seems quite ridiculous that we have to re-vote to keep it, let alone have our voices IGNORED (75% said to keep HCC) once we have voiced our desires to elected officials who are supposed to REPRESENT the people's desires/vote.
Please dont do this Kirkland CC.
HCC has done an excellent job of ensuring g this neighborhood does not get overbuilt before the Kirkland City Council ensures there is adequate road widening.
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
The council has officially backed down from seeking state interference with our local agreements. This outcome belongs entirely to the 223 of you who refused to let our community contract be ignored. I am still processing that we actually won this but we should all keep a close eye on …
February 18, 2022
Kirkland City Council Should Not Ask Washington Legislators to Interfere with Contract Made with It's Citizens
Final supporters
We the undersigned attest to the following. We feel it would be improper for Kirkland City Council to ask State Legislators to interfere with the contract and the responsibilities the city and its Houghton Residents agreed to in Ordinance O-2001, 2003 and 2007.
HISTORY
The City of Kirkland was eager to consolidate with the City of Houghton. Houghton had concerns about joining the larger city and having its voice respected. The deal was sweetened with Kirkland offering to allow the City of Houghton to have their own Community Council. The two sides agreed on the rights and responsibilities of both sides. They agreed on an initial 4 year term of the Community Council and they agreed that the Community Council would continue to be renewed every 4 years (if Houghton-ites voted affirmatively).
City of Kirkland voters approved the bill that was put in front of them. Those in Houghton approved it in a separate vote. In both cases, the (one) vote included a definition of the areas to be included in consolidation, the date and the terms of the consolidation and the formation of Houghton Community Council with its terms of existance and renewal. A deal was struck. These agreements are documented them by Ordinances (Kirkland local law) O-2001, 2003 & 2007.
Kirkland City Council, has been unsuccessful in gaining the trust of Houghton citizens with respect to the issues identified in O-2001, and Houghton area citizens continue to renew the Community Council as ordained. The current vote obtained more than 70% votes to continue the Community Council.
Kirkland City Council would like out of the contract with Houghton, but they have not earned Houghton's trust in the issues identified in O-2001. They have been unable to get out of their side of the bargain no matter how often they mis-represent the Houghton Council and their work. In contrast, Houghton has continued to fulfill its obligations and is entitled to the rights assigned in the agreements made.
Attempts should not be made to get Legislators from Washington State House and Sentate to impair the contract and provide special favors to Kirkland City Council Members, or former Kirkland Council Members and friends that now have legislative power.
Updates
November 20, 2021
I have been hearing from so many of you about why these original agreements matter and your stories are the only reason this conversation is still happening. I truly never expected this to resonate with so many people but I am honored that you chose to trust me with your concerns.
Reached 100 supporters
November 20, 2021
100 Comments
I don't live in Houghton but support the continuance of the HCC. They listen to the residents they represent and the City Council and Legislature should honor the contract that was made and the over 71% vote by the residents to keep the HCC
The City of Kirkland has long disfavored residents in support of the commercial over-development of a what was once a wonderful place to live. I stand in support of the Houghton Community Council and their efforts to balance progress and quality of life for residents.
This action is an overreach by KCC. The correct remedy is for the HCC to remain in place unless and until the citizens of Houghton vote for it to be dismantled. Representatives from across the state have NO standing on this issue.
Thanks for initiating this petition. Amy Walen just lost my support as represntative of the 48th district. Too bad that the former mayor of Kirkland is trying to do this. I believe Larry Springer tried to do the same thing in the Washington Legislation, fortunately UNSUCCESSFULLY!
Usually those involved in politics would be calling a 50 point vote margin victory a mandate. But the Kirkland city council sees a 50 point vote margin LOSS as their mandate to try and repeal the voters' will. Very disappointing.
HHC was established as a condition for annexation to the City of Kirkland in 1968. It seems quite ridiculous that we have to re-vote to keep it, let alone have our voices IGNORED (75% said to keep HCC) once we have voiced our desires to elected officials who are supposed to REPRESENT the people's desires/vote.
Please dont do this Kirkland CC.
HCC has done an excellent job of ensuring g this neighborhood does not get overbuilt before the Kirkland City Council ensures there is adequate road widening.
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
I don't live in Houghton but support the continuance of the HCC. They listen to the residents they represent and the City Council and Legislature should honor the contract that was made and the over 71% vote by the residents to keep the HCC